Justice Anu Sivaraman, Justice K. Manmadha Rao, Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation To Student Wrongly Denied MBBS Admission
|The Court held that the college acted arbitrarily by denying admission to a meritorious candidate despite payment of fees and submission of a bank guarantee, and directed compensation for the loss caused.
The Karnataka High Court directed a Medical College to pay ₹15 lakh as compensation to a student who was wrongfully denied admission to the MBBS course for the academic year 2017–18.
The Court held that the institution’s insistence on a bank guarantee for the entire course fee, without any provision in the prospectus or applicable regulations, and its subsequent denial of admission despite compliance, amounted to arbitrary and illegal conduct.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaramana and Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that the petitioner had fulfilled all admission requirements, including payment of the first-year fee and submission of the bank guarantee, yet was denied admission while less meritorious candidates were admitted.
Ordering payment of compensation to the aggrieved student, the Court stated: “Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the compensation to be granted should be referable to the entire fee she had paid for the MBBS Course undergone by her in the subsequent year.”
Advocate Ajoy Kumar Patil appeared for the petitioner, while Advocates Sudev Hegde (AGA), Madanan Pillai (CGC), N. Khetty, Chandrakanth R. Goulay, and Prasanna Kumar represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, having secured an eligible NEET rank, participated in counselling conducted by the college in September 2017 for MBBS admissions. She submitted her original documents and first-year fee but was later informed that a bank guarantee for the remaining course fees was required.
Despite submitting the guarantee within days, she was denied admission on the grounds that all seats had been filled and the list had been sent to the Medical Council of India.
The petitioner alleged that less meritorious candidates were admitted in violation of NEET merit and that the Chancellor later issued a written assurance promising her a free MBBS seat for the next academic year, 2018–19. However, the college failed to honour this assurance, forcing her to take admission in another private institution by paying substantial fees.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioner delayed filing the writ petition, failed to comply with admission requirements on time, and did not submit the bank guarantee and undertaking within the prescribed period.
They further questioned the authenticity of the assurance letter, claiming it was fabricated or obtained under coercion, and maintained that the admission process was conducted transparently based on merit.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court found that there was no clause in the prospectus, admission notification, or regulations requiring a bank guarantee for the entire course as a precondition for admission. It held that the petitioner had paid the first-year fee within the stipulated time and submitted the guarantee shortly thereafter, and the denial of admission was unjustifiable.
Taking note of the absence of any such prerequisites during the admission process, the court remarked: "In the absence of any provision, in the prospectus, the admission notification, the statutes governing admissions or anywhere else that the production of the Bank Guarantee for the entire course period was required for admission, the action of respondent No.6 in having denied to the petitioner and having granted the seat to a less meritorious candidate was per se arbitrary and illegal and cannot be excused under any circumstances."
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court observed that a candidate should not suffer due to the fault of an institution and that, where admission is not possible, compensation can be awarded. "We notice that the instant case was one where the writ petitioner was not at fault and it was only on account of the illegal demand raised by respondent No.6 that she was unable to join a MBBS Course in the Academic Year 2017-2018", the Court noted.
The Bench further rejected the institution’s contention that the assurance letter was fabricated or obtained under coercion, noting that no complaint had been lodged nor any evidence produced to dispute its authenticity. It held that the petitioner’s decision to wait for the promise to be honoured was reasonable and that there was no undue delay in approaching the Court.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition in part, the Court directed the Medical College to pay ₹15 lakh as compensation to the petitioner within two months.
Cause Title: Sanjana V Tumkur v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Ajoy Kumar Patil, Advocate
Respondents: Advocates Sudev Hegde (AGA), Madanan Pillai (CGC), N. Khetty, Chandrakanth R. Goulay, Prasanna Kumar